New here!

Hi! New member here.

So I’m not Christian, I’m not sure if I should be here…

I believe, stubbornly, in rational thought, and reason has led me to idealism - that reality is fundamentally spiritual or mental in nature.

That this is evident simply by thinking and existing is such a perfection of reality that it leads me to a faith in the method for unveiling all things - but I understand the Christian belief is that it can lead to general revelation and not beyond it.

I would challenge that. There is also a common belief that rational thought leads to materialism, which is not at all the case, so I think rational thought is underestimated.

I want to reach an understanding of God this way without relying on theology. I suspect that it’s possible, and I would be interested in finding others who would join me on the journey from the other end of things.

Please let me know if this sort of exploration is welcome here. Thank you for taking the time and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Welcome. I understand what you're saying and i started in a similar way.
When you see the miracle of existence, the fine-tuning argument, miracles and the life of Jesus Christ Himself, it's overwhelming evidence for any rational mind to conclude that we are Created.
The fine details of your journey is trying to find why Christianity makes more sense? Or are you at the first step? Doubting that God exist?
One of our members here, @Magenta has a few startup Alpha courses you can look at when you're at the exploring stage, but feel free to discuss anything here.

You certainly underestimate the importance and prominence of rational thought in Christianity .

Faith is not without evidence. First hand; empirical. Not something that is taught or passed down to us.


Welcome!
As @Eli1 mentioned, here are some awesome videos for you to check out .




There are 10 videos total. I hope you watch them. They could benefit you greatly .

There is no reason for you not to be here unless you simply want to argue against Christian beliefs.

That would be counterproductive to your membership, as it would likely eventually get you banned.

That is certainly not a typical unbelievers' stance. How would you classify yourself beyond "idealist"?

Heh, I still chuckle to myself to think of one atheist with whom I used to speak, for he
would call the word "spiritual" and any of its derivatives a soggy cabbage of a word .

What is the basis for your premise? Is it based on experience? Is it based on human reasoning? Is there some other basis?
And welcome.

Thank you for your welcome. I think I’m still at the first step? Although I’d appreciate your opinion. The conclusions I’ve drawn are as follows:
1. Reductionism and the interaction problem require a single monistic qualitative fundamental
2. This fundamental quality must account for experience (which is also parsimonious as experience can express complexity to match the complexity of the knowable universe - so it can contain it)
3. While reality is mostly quantifiable rigid causality, that our physical minds have evolved to match our internal experience (as well as many other evidences of improbable design) implies these rules are adjusted to accommodate this underlying quality - I suppose this is the fine tuning argument?
4. To fix this accommodation to match the nature of the underlying quality (initial design?) requires some foresight or intuition that implies some collaboration or understanding beyond trial and error - this part I’m struggling to put into words but feel has a rational basis

I’m currently affixed to the issue of morality. I see a utilitarian purpose to most evil, although at times vestigial, and certainly to good. This puts me between relative and objective, where given a freedom of circumstance there is an objective morality being evolved towards, to better express the initial design, but a relative morality when physicality demands compromise. This may align with the Christian thought that physical reality as the root of evil, and some interpretations that evil is the absence of good, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to say.

I have difficulties separating any aspect from the creator, thus polarizing good and evil. From a metaphysical perspective, I can see how physical reality is not a true representation and the source of difficulties, but I also see how much we depend on physicality to grow and think, and I would speculate that the alternative might be a boundless dreamlike state. At least until we have learned ourselves through physicality and mastered something beyond it. I’m not sure how well this aligns with Christian theology.
I also see the ten commandments as resonating with this existential dilemma, and this might - most likely is - a bastardized interpretation to conform to my own view. When I think of using gods names in vain, I imagine that this is what physicality is doing, mirroring God in a falsehood. Or lust, desiring for something other than a metaphysical singularity - an embodiment. Or lying - when this physicality is a lie. And that the punishment is death, which is to return to the boundless and formless state that is the only truth.
So that’s where I am in my thinking. I’m not sure exactly, where that puts me in the steps you mentioned.

Human reasoning and experience led to idealism, would you like me to explain my reasoning in more depth? Or were you referring to the premise that I believe rational thought can unveil God? Because thats a little more irrational. I loved how the only tools necessary to reach idealism were thinking and the fact I exist. It felt like realizing you’re in a puzzle box and the answer to the puzzle was the shape of the box, so well designed that I thought the pattern should continue - so an emotional reaction and faith in perfection is why I’m adhering to that specific premise.

>HERE'S< THE best news you'll hear all year

That’s good to hear! I like the feeling of certainty I have with idealism and I would like the same for God. Thank you for the links.

You posted alot of information without giving all the underlying premises. So I am attempting to understand the basis for your understanding. You seem to be saying that human reasoning and experience are at least in part what led you to the premise that these are sufficient to come to the knowledge of God. Is this correct?
Also, you mentioned morality. How do you come to conclusions about what is right and wrong?
I have lots more questions, but I'd rather take them one at a time if you are amenable.

Beyond idealist, I’m certain of very little. I have guesses, that’s all.

It doesn't. What you describe is much more aligned with new age thought and somewhat borders on shamanism.

This sounds very much like Hinduism's Brahmin and Saṃsāra, with the endless transmigration of the soul through cycles of rebirth.

That is good, and Jesus did say He was going to spit out of His mouth those
who were neither hot nor cold. There really is no wishy washy in Christianity.

Heh. That's why people get called fundamentalists. We are hard core LOL.

You are welcome!

Human reasoning and experience were enough to reach idealism, I’m not certain if it’s enough to reach God, I feel it’s worth trying at least.
As for how I know right from wrong, and I see now how thats necessary to understand my opinions on good and evil, I think its a combination of empathy (how would I want to be treated) and utilitarian value towards empathy. I realize that empathy is a very subjective measure, I would rather be punished and improve upon a fault - so I might treat others in a way they don’t want to be treated - and I may mistakes in that in which the only defense is the utilitarian value of trying, rather than saying nothing. And so there is a deeper code, which is that my empathy depends on my advancing towards an ideal behavior, rather than maximizing happiness in the moment, which is again subjective and likely unfixed - although it feels fixed on an abstract level and then lost in translation.

I’m not sure how to respond to you,
I’m not sure how to respond to you here, my interest is in exploring Christian theology, and so I’m attempting to bridge the conclusion of monism with the idea of a Creator and evil set apart. The bastardized interpretation of commandments was certainly me playing with the idea - and I can understand if you think it suits a different theology, but did you mean that it implies a cyclical reincarnation on its own? or just that that is a quality of the theology your mentioning?

The quote about being spat out if I’m undecided and your response pushing me towards other theologies implies you might not appreciate further discussions with me, so feel free not to respond to the above questions.

Human reasoning and experience are sufficient to know of the existence of God, but they are insufficient to know God. It's not difficult to lay outside at night and gaze at the vastness of space or look at the complexity of a cell under a microscope and come to the conclusion that things so complex and vast didn't come into being by time and chance. But knowing of someone's existence is a far cry from knowing intimately that person.

What happens to your understanding comes to this conclusion? What if there is something more that is beyond reason and experience necessary?

Concerning morality, you seem to be suggesting that it is subjective. What is to keep another from inflicting harm upon you without repercussions because in their subjective view their behavior passes their standards?

Oh, no, the comment I made about what Jesus said regarding being neither hot
nor cold was to do with the idea of certainty which you said appealed to you.
I was agreeing with the idea of certainty, and Scripture affirms this sentiment also.

As to the rest, I was simply drawing parallels between your thinking and other systems of thought that
are not compatible with Christian theology, as that was your question (or what you were wondering).

Response

Lizzy, after I read this, my first initial reaction is that you need a hot shower, a food detox and a vacation.
But jokes aside, let’s try to establish some baselines using the medium that we’re using.

I’d like to point out the topic of communication.
Before we even attempt to understand each other to reach higher truths, we have to use language that’s understood by both parties in text-based communication.
I stress text-based communication because in real life I would have stopped you at your first sentence and say “stop and explain to me what Idealism is in your own words”
But since we’re not in real life, you have managed to say about 30 different concepts and ideas in your post, each requiring an hour to digest properly.
And a lot of those topics have nothing to do with what we’re trying to talk about either.

So, in text based communication, as well as real life communication it’s important to start small, so we both understand each other and then we go big and expand on one topic after we understood each other.

Since knowledge is an accumulation of what people before us have said, it’s important for me to know if you’re repeating things you’ve heard without understanding them or if you know things so you can explain them to me in your own words using basic simple concepts and words.

So, with this being said let’s begin again.
I am on a limited free willed journey in this existence and so far the accumulated human knowledge has shown me the following:

1. The universe exists with all of us in it, which started with an initial explosion/expansion which requires a first mover according to our experience of reality.
2. The fine-tuning argument exists
3. Miracles exist
4. Jesus Christ was here

These are known as brute facts.
A brute fact is a fact which can’t be explained by a deeper fact. But it’s real and undeniable.
Kinda like quantum mechanics. We don’t know how it works but we built an atom bomb and the internet out of it.

So, let’s discuss point 2.

The fine tuning argument says that the four basic fundamental forces or the universe which are Gravity, Electromagnetism, the strong Nuclear force , and the weak nuclear force are fine-tuned to give rise to everything in existence.

Now the word “fine tuned” is a word or a concept which is said by scientists such as Steven Hawkings who was an atheist and others in his league as well as other theoretical physics who also like to delve into philosophy.

So if you have a problem with this concept you gotta take it up with many people and again this is a brute fact because we’ve measured it.

This basically implies intelligent design.

So now, when you’re presented with this brute fact what’s your opinion and your limited free willed choice on how to interpret it?

Your example of staring at the stars is enough for someone to feel wonder that leads them to entertain the idea of God, but they may not feel certainty and they have not proven it to themselves in a way that removes all doubt. This is not what I was referring to when saying that human reason and empirical observation leads to idealism.

1. Reductionism is a valid approach to understanding reality (supported by scientific success).
2. The interaction problem is a genuine philosophical issue (widely accepted in philosophy).
3. We can empirically observe our own experience (self-evident).

1. Premise: If multiple fundamental properties existed, they would need to interact.
- This follows from our observation of a coherent reality.

2. Premise: Truly fundamental properties cannot be reduced to or explained by anything else.
- This is the definition of "fundamental" in this context.

3. Conclusion 1: There cannot be multiple fundamental properties (from 1 and 2).
- If they interacted, they would not be truly fundamental.

4. Conclusion 2: Reality must be monistic (from 3).
- There must be only one fundamental property or substance.

5. Premise: We directly observe experience.
- This is empirically self-evident.

6. Premise: Experience can accommodate the full complexity of known reality.
- Our experiences can represent everything we know about reality.

7. Conclusion 3: The fundamental property of reality expresses itself as experience (from 4, 5, and 6).
- This is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for all our observations.

Final Conclusion:
The fundamental nature of reality is experiential.

So this is the sort of certainty I’m looking for.

As for your question on morality, I don’t know if it’s subjective or objective. I don’t know if I’m applying morality correctly. And even if I said it was subjective, based on my own judgements, those judgements are based on concepts that may be innate and universally shared. If your point is that we need external law to impose morality, I can see the value in that - but there is morality in every degree of action - I would suppose - and I doubt any law can make our every decision for us, so some subjective morality must always be in play.
Maybe the concept that evil can have a utilitarian function is directly opposed to Christianity, part of the reason for bringing it up is that I suspect it might be. But, I’m not suggesting a purely relative morality, so I think there’s hope for reconciliation. I’ve heard a quote that evil is the absence of good being part of some Christian thought, and thats an idea I can understand.
I see in nature - as an example although I know there are higher standards for humans than animals - there are frogs that eat their young, there is not enough food and too many predators so they over proliferate and cannibalize. There are other frogs that raise their young, dedicating a great deal of time to them, and their circumstances are better.
Good has utilitarian value. Kindness, forgiveness, charity, humility, all aid in survival, and beyond that in bringing the conditions of life in harmony with the initial design, the nature of the underlying quality. Survival seems a part of that, which is why we can see such utilitarian results. Death, particularly the extinction of a culture or species, is a loss of that accumulated alignment of physicality towards design, and so is a greater evil than whatever evil must be done to protect it. So circumstantially relative, but an underlying objective, platonic I suppose, good